A small Silicon Valley County, now known as the first inside the United States to vote in a new law, which will require a ‘Continued Oversight and Regular Evaluation’ for law agencies, before any acquisitions of surveillance technology purchases can occur, has made headlines.
This new ordinance, in which was approved by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors just last Tuesday, requires the local county sheriff, as well as the district attorney’s office, to seek the approval of the board before their agencies can even start the process of obtaining any means of new spying technology. While the government agencies are not fully required to immediately inform the board pertaining exigent circumstances, they will, however, require to do so within 90 days.
The local government agencies will also be required to provide the board with a usage policy, as well as an Annual Surveillance Report. Within the compounds of the report, it should contain information about the data of the device captures, and how the government agency will be dealing with their acquired information that has been collected amongst their local citizens. They are also to provide intel on whether the obtained gear has been proven effective, as well as other requirements.
“The ordinance doesn’t prohibit the acquisition of any surveillance technology,” was reported by the supervisor, Joe Simitian. Simitian is a longstanding local privacy advocate, as well as a former state senator. He informed Ars that “It says if you’re going to acquire any surveillance technology, let’s talk about the privacy and due process rights.”
Simitian continues, adding “the issue is not the technology. The question is whether or not we have the wisdom to use the technology appropriately.”
Catherine Crump, who is a law professor at the local University of California, Berkeley, states that she was not educated on any of the county-wide or nation-wide implementation. However, she did note that Seattle has also enforced a similar municipal law.
“It’s particularly important that a tech savvy jurisdiction in the heart of Silicon Valley model how we can achieve the benefits of surveillance technology without abandoning people’s privacy rights,” Crump continues in an email to Ars. “It seems likely that other counties and cities will use what Santa Clara has done as a model and feel more comfortable creating ground rules in this area.”
A law professor, Elizabeth Joh, working at the University of California, also stated that she does not know about any similar county-wide ordinances already in place.
“If secrecy breeds suspicion, openness encourages oversight,” Joh said, “…in the post-Snowden era, communities want to know ‘how’ the police are doing what they do, not just that they are achieving data-driven results.”
This brings us to a delicate balance of privacy bestowed by the law agencies.
In the 10 page ordinance, the board does acknowledge California’s right to privacy; enshrined within the state constitution, but also notates:
“…surveillance technology may also be a valuable tool to bolster community safety and aid in the investigation and prosecution of crimes. To balance the public’s right to privacy with the need to promote and ensure community safety, the Board finds that any decision to use surveillance technology must be judiciously balanced with an assessment of the sosts to the County and the protection of privacy, civil liberties, and civil rights.”
The Board of Santa Clara has made major headlines just over a year ago when they had refused to provide any proof of the approved purchases of the ‘cell-site’ simulators, better known as ‘Stingrays’. Simitian led the charge, trying to pierce the veil of secrecy; as the county assigned sheriff had then attempted to acquire the stringrays, utilizing any means of federal grant finances, ultimately leading to the boards rejections despite the sheriff’s efforts.
The civil liberties organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union of California, lauded in Tuesday’s vote.
“When law enforcements gets to conceal the use of surveillance tools, they also get to conceal the misuse and abuse of these technologies,” Nicole Ozer, the director in the ACLU of California. stated. Ozer, as well, was in discussion with Ars via direct email conversation. Ozer continues, adding that “law enforcement in Silicon Valley has attempted secret drone purchases, lobbied to buy invasive cell phone trackers, and used social networking software to target Black, Asian-American, and Muslim protesters, so there certainly was a need for greater transparency and oversight.”
Sources: Arstechnica, DocumentCloud, SCCGov, Berkeley Law, ACLUCA.
This article (Silicon Valley County has Passed New Laws Requiring Official Approval before Cops Purchase “Spy Kits”) is a free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and AnonHQ.
